Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

I could see it go that way. But I could also see it go 4 -5 that the rest of the law is constitutional

I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
we've been saying.

On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
never know.

LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

Re: Oral Arguments

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
we've been saying.

On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
never know.

LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

Re: Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court disaster. If it upholds the law it will be in spite of the SG's performance. Ginsberg had to bail him out and interrupted him explaining why Americans won't be forced to buy brocolli to which Verili gratefully, said, yes that's it. He had to explain to the court that passing the law won't leave the gov't with unlimited powers which he couldn't do so Ginsberg did it for him.

______________________________________
"I thought what was unique about this is it's not my choice whether I want to buy a product to keep me healthy, but the cost that I am forcing on other people if I don't buy the product sooner rather than later," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Verrilli responded gratefully: "That is—and that is definitely a difference that distinguishes this market and justifies this as a regulation."
________________________________________

Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. "Could you just—before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?" Verrilli turned to precedent again. "It's very much like Wickard in that respect, it's very much like Raich in that respect," Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli's performance, not because of it.
____________________________________________

This is worse than Galen laughing at Sara Palin confusing Africa as a continent. This is a more educated lawyer who appeared before
the SC 17 times although he lost most recently when he tried to argue that lethal injection of gas into two death row inmates was
cruel and inhumane tortue. Hopefully, his losing streak continues.

Anyone who thought Scalia would vote for it better think again. The first two days have been a train wreck for OBY CARE.

Re: Oral Arguments

On the flip side, Roberts and Kennedy grilled the opposing attys as well. These justices are by far the most liberal of the GOP justices appointed by Reagan and Bush. We got stuck with Kennedy when Congress rejected Borke's appointment by Reagan by a 9-5 vote. DEMs confirmed Kennedy knowing he wasn't as conservative. Note Reagan's remark in link. Many senators of various political persuasion seem to like Judge Kennedy.
Translated: he's a f*cking liberal.

The liberal Bush appointed the liberal Roberts to the bench. Liberals should
be kissing W's feet right now or we wouldn't be discussing this.

__________________________________________

Roberts and Kennedy were also piercing in their questions to the two lawyers challenging the individual mandate about the government's contention that Congress is validly regulating people who already are in the market because virtually everyone is going to need healthcare at some point.

"That's my concern in the case," Kennedy said, noting that young, uninsured people affect the overall market by not paying into it and ultimately receiving care over the long term.

In a similar vein, Roberts said at one point that the healthcare market could be viewed as different from that for cars or other products because everybody is in it.

They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Oral Arguments

They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".

I was surprised by the media (even though I shouldn't be) rushing to the cameras to say, "it's going to be struck down". They grilled the opposing side too, albeit not as hard, or as many justices but they still did.

Re: Oral Arguments

So if Rush Limbaugh refuses to buy it, IRS will collect 2% of his total salary.
He gets about $100M pr yr from his radio show plus his speaking engagements, endorsements and books.

So $100M x 2% = ouch.

If you make $50,000 pr yr it's still ouch.

Another thing someone mentioned on TV. If he is re-eleted he will completely do away with private insurance industry much like he is trying to destroy
the coal industry and the gov't will be the only provider.